Finally got the time to read this in one go - not only does it engender cheerful agreement, self-congratulatory vindication, unpleasant self-recognition, and nodding determination, but it also ties-in to recent threads from 'Lord of the Rings' through Robert Kagan to Official Statements.
--- Bryon Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Have you guys read Dr. Brin's keynote speech for the > Libertarian Party National > Convention? He's published it here: > http://www.kithrup.com/brin/libertarianarticle1.html > What do you think of it? >From page 2: "According to the philosophical tradition first expressed by Plato, our world is made up of "essences" or quasi-linguistic elements that are more fundamental than the murky world of complex physical people and objects. Belief in these essences retarded the arrival of Galilean science for 2,000 years, because it was so widely assumed that a real thinker would prefer to spend time pondering pure thoughts, than getting dirty with experiments. To a religious person these essences are articles of faith. To men of reason, they can be logical syllogisms or well-wrought ideological principles. (Ain't it odd that faith and reason are so often viewed as polar opposites? To a pragmatist, they look like very close cousins, operating under the same very questionable assumption -- that words can somehow over-rule gritty reality.)" Oh, I like! ;) > While I'm not sure I agree with everything he says, > I thought that overall, it was a > brilliant speech. For me, there were several "Wow - > I never thought of it *that way*!" > moments and other ideas that really gave me some new > perspectives on things. Frex, the 'objective reality' folks (whom I was unable to articulate my distrust of, but felt nevertheless): "Rather than deal in gritty tests and iterative experimentation, [Ann] Rand used "objective reality" as a mantric phrase -- an incantatory touchstone that served as a rock, an unquestionable axiomatic foundation. In effect, an article of faith. Around this she would go on to weave cajoling and persuading rhythms, almost identical in form to the Plato's Socratic dialogues, such as Phaedrus -- and, indeed, similar to much of the Marxist dialexctic -- ...Central to this zeitgeist is the implied and desired assumption of mental superiority..." <smugness> About regulations, he notes "That the urge to regulate should always face a steep and constantly renewed burden of proof." "Science has learned recently that contempt and indignation are addictive mental states. I mean physically and chemically addictive. Literally! People who are self-righteous a lot are apparently doping themselves rhythmically with auto-secreted surges of dopamine, endorphins and enkephalins. Didn't you ever ask yourself why indignation feels so good?" "...Can we step back to see that this emotional need to feel superior runs deeper than any of our superficial differences over politics and ideology? It makes you far more like your opponents than you would ever like to admit. In other words, spanning all extremes of reason and morality, it's human." <shakes head from karmic slappage> Ouch! "Thou shalt not offend others. Thou shalt not allow thyself to be offended too easily." I think I can try to live with that. In an echo of one of Kagan's themes, on page 4 he notes: "In other words, the precondition necessary for creating paradise is... near-paradise. And, viewed in the context of human history, that is exactly what we've got right now." (Although Kagan felt that America was denied that state, I think Brin's view is closer to current reality.) > I also would like to see what other people think > about this specific excerpt from the > speech (from pg. 3): <I snipped this further> > "When it comes to imposing or eliminating > government regulation, which of the major parties is > the 'lesser of evils'? > > "Not enough of a hint? Well, for now, just try > on one irony. We are used to the cliché that > "Democrats favor > freedom in the bedroom while Republicans favor > freedom in the boardroom." But look over the last 30 > years. How many industries have been > deregulated to a degree that's more than cosmetic? I > count trucking, banking, real estate, > telecommunications, airlines and parcel post. And > the 'industry' of the > Welfare Program. Now ask, how many or these > major steps were taken as Republican initiatives and > how many Democratic?" > I haven't been a serious political follower, so I'm > not sure about the origins of all those initiatives, > but I suspect they were mostly Republican ones - (am > I wrong on this?) NAFTA (trucking, among others) came in under Clinton, but I don't know if Dems initiated it. My political saavy is still in infancy... :) As my last reading of anything Heinlein was over 2 decades ago, I'll consider re-trying. Maybe. >:/ Deborafu Harureruru __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
